I don't understand how the B737-8/9/10 were designed to phase out the B767.That seems impossible.The 767 is massive compared to the humble but wildly successful 737 line.Please, show us the documentation.

One of or the main benefits of a single airframe & accouterments for all missions is commonality, which, usually means huge cost savings and collateral benefits in most every category.The superb B-737-8/9 MAX, especially without the alleged faulty programming, is touted by some as the most successful and safest commercial aircraft of all time.When I heard and read about the two crashes, I suspected human shortcomings at Boeing and/or possibly stock manipulation via corporate sabotage, or, worse.Nothing seems to really make sense about these incidents and the faulty programming; and, with the cyber attacks and gross stealing of some of our top secret military secrets, plans and documents by CHINA, who are building their own near copies of American and European aircraft, who the heck knows?

The thing is, the B737MAX is not the same airframe...the tube and controls yes, but thats it...wings have been re-engineered as well as engine placement....the "faulty" programming is in all the MAX jets, it's why Boeing is re-writing the algorithm.

your comment, intended or not, has moved out of the arena of an aviation discussion.try to get your head around my comment. just try. your comment has nothing to do with aviation. try to understand that. can you?now.take all those envelopes over there on the desk and mail them for me.and be careful with them.they are the dividend checks to boeing shareholders for this quarter. they are hopping mad about not getting one last quarter, and nothing matters to them, absolutely nothing, except that they get their big fat dividend check. they have vacations to take and mistresses to support. now run along and mail those envelopes.and stop making financial market comments in an aviation blog.

Yeah agree, love the '57 but Boeing simply did not look past the end of its nose or around the corner at the time the '57 was canned. Guess the '37 was just more profitable on a frame by frame basis and they made a decision for that time and not for the future. Guess they just tried to milk the 737 frame too long - the 900 is a glaring example of too much stretch I think. BUT the was not taking the 37 over the 57 but more so on Boeing being slack on the job and losing sight of what QA is all about. Whether the '37 or '57 frame was chosen, the lax QA would have applied to both. It seems to be systemic and quite possibly based on stock price and not much else. Hate to say it guys but aviation is not about engineering,,,,, its about money. Who is the #1 customer of Boeing and any manufacturer for that fact? Certainly not the flying public, certainly not the airlines. It is the stockholder. Full stop.

Now we know why Boeing tried to prevent the Bombardier C-Series from entering the US market. The now Airbus A-220 is many years ahead of all the 737s, and has a proven record of satisfied customers. Get in line Southwest.

This is not news. It was a bully move by Boeing (pulling jobs from Canada) with the assistance of Trump. That skunk could be smelled a mile away and Boeing was clearly outplayed by Airbus in snagging the C-Series/A-220. Now Boeing is forced to dance with Embraer which has nothing new to compare to the A-220. Stupid, stupid, move.

Wow what another amazingly stupid statement. Of course all these airlines chose to buy a plane that was “many years“ behind in development of other planes that were available at the time. Sure. Sounds like you justify you’re Buying used cars because the “components have already been well tested.”

Perhaps Boeing needs a new CEO . . . this one has been a slave to the stock price; and placed earnings over safety. Now the Air Force has stopped accepting the new tanker because of debris findings on several of the new deliveries? Pity . . .

No question on a new CEO, he missed the boat by pushing the limits of the 737 , any airplane past the 737-700 has bad performance, should have improved the 757/767, new type corporate CEO, no integrity, profits before safety

""Chairman Emeritus Herb Kelleher made a deal with Boeing that was never written down. No airline on Earth would pay less for 737s than Southwest. And if they did, Boeing owed Southwest a check "no questions asked," recounted another retired Boeing executive and confirmed by a second. "Just a handshake and it was honored.""It's a damn good thing, then, that United cancelled the MOU they had with Boeing for the 737NG's and went with the MAX...if that sale had gone through, sounds like Boeing would have owed Southwest a nice fat check.

BTW...this article isnt "click bait" or fake news...no 1 made mention anywhere that Southwest is "buying" A220's, it said "eyeing" A220's...Southwest has Boeing by the tail with the number of MAX on hand and on order and want to shake that tail. Picture this...you own a huge fleet of Cadillac's and ordered a lot more...but GM has an issue with the model..can u speed up the "repair" process, knowing GM will get wind of it, by looking at other manufactures models in same ball park? Perhaps not but does not hurt to try.

I’d suggest you never take a lie detector test about your statements in your original post or this one. The fact that you immediately became defensive and had to explain and pars your statement is one of the very first indicators of a lie.

Its all very fine to gawk at the newest A220 pony with claimed high efficiency. Before SWA swoons, how bout research the in-flight shutdown rate of the newer P&W Geared Turbofans. GTF powers A220 , and powers some of the A320neos. The IFSD rate is shocking. Recently, A P&W GTF engine failed during the INITIAL DELIVERY flight to an Asian A320neo customer. SWA : Do you really wanna buy an engine type that can't even survive its maiden delivery flight ? Does " GTF " mean Going To Fail

Actually they are not the same model betweenm the A220 and A320 and the newer A220 engines seem to be doing fine...so much fine that Air Baltic, Delta and Lufthansa ordered more.The high efficiency isn't just claimed, it's been proven time and time again. And CFM isn't doing much better with its LEAP engine...look at Southwest's issues with them.

- None of these are proven designs nor have had long term service. Indigo airlines is now under a show-cause safety audit from India DGCA. More than 18 cases of midair engine failures / problems since January in Indigo fleet of GTF pwrd A320neos. Who knows for GTF. Will the hope of Grand Trophy Financially become seen as engine style Guaranteed To Fail ? For me, nogo on powerplants that run half fast

Airbus and Bombardier were in talks ling before Airbus took a stake in the company...and the exec's didn't "sell out" anything since C-Series was a partnership. They actually ensured the C-Series survival thks to Boeing and the FTC imposing tariffs, which cut, but were later struck down. That and Airbus has acquired more land at Mirabel to expand.Many Canadian companies over time have been divested in/bought by foreign corp. Look at Aeryon Labs being bought by Flir.

There's a difference between saying they're interested in the A220 and actually intending to buy it. This could be just a piece of theatre to get Boeing's attention. There's no question that if Southwest stopped buying 737s, Boeing would be in a world of hurt, not just from the loss of Southwest's business but also the effect it would have on a lot of other airlines, too.

Southwest knows that showing interest, serious or not, in the A220 will be a very loud wake-up call at Boeing. Time will tell how Boeing responds and if Southwest makes a paradigm shift to the A220.

The problem is that to the vast majority of the public, a 737 is a 737 whether it's a Classic, an NG, or a MAX. I wouldn't want to be the PR department tasked with trying to tell paying customers "Yes it's a 737, but it's not a 737 MAX so it's safe to fly on".

Look what Alaska Air did after the flight 261 crash. They ditched their DC-9's, eventually. People just wouldn't fly on them, I'm sure. Someone asked me why they were still flying 737's knowing they were unsafe. Another crash, and Boeing won't be able to give them away, and carriers won't be able to pay people to fly in them. Sure some will fly in anything (Just look at Allegiant) but carriers will take a huge hit in rider numbers.

Not just a maintenance blunder, but also a design blunder, as the jackscrew cited in ASA261 was a major problem, as the AD that was released for it referenced it for all DC9s, MD80s, MD90s, B717s, and B727s, and possibly the ERJs and CRJs; basically all fuselage-mounted jets at the time.

A text book theory from business school, "NEVER USE A SINGLE SOURCE OF SUPPLY", this theory was well documented from examples of real companies that go stuck with using a single source. Southwest needs to go back to business school and look at real examples.

I fly internationally for the most part. When flying within country, Southwest is my ONLY carrier. Should this a/c get approved to fly again, I'll seek an alternate airline unless I know that I can book a flight on an other than MAX a/c. Living in upstate NY, the situation is bleak, as I don't fly American or United. I guess we'll see how this turns out.

Still, my comment was not aimed at Southwest; it's at Dennis Muilenburg who obviously wanted to gain market share on the 'cheap'. There is no shortcut on safety issues; no shortcuts on quality. Ask yourself, do you think that the old pulley system control systems are the best that a manufacturer has to offer? That's what's in the 737Max! And the airlines had to pay extra for the (optional) safety factor that a 2nd sensor would provide for the stall software. Imagine! How crass and un-sympathetic to the pilots and dangerous for the public. I think Dennis needs to find the door for all the poor choices that happened on "his watch". In the Army it was called 'being relieved' for cause.

Wow,not good. The final Axe has been raised. I have been hoping to hear news that Boeing was reengineering the Max back to a tried and true W&B AND DUMP THE MCAS..The pilots and the public are totally against that airframe,and there has been nothing about the cozy relationship with FAA.. trust had been lost... very hard to fix now.

Much of the public don't know what plane they are flying on, and don't care, but the cozy relationship with the FAA should be VERY distressing to fliers. And this practice of the regulated regulating the regulators is only going to get worse.

This is a bad article and you have to pay to read the entire diatribe. On WSJ it says Gary Kelly confirmed SWA allegiance to the 737 and Boeing. Come on FlightAware you guys are great at not allowing clickbait articles. Get rid of this one.

The article was free to read earlier in the week. If you could not read the article, and click links within the article, how can you say it is clickbait?As discussed multiple times here, "looking" at another craft, to shake Boeings tail a bit and get them moving faster, is not "buying" the craft.

rapidwolve...I spend over 35 years in the airline/aerospace industry. To start flying a new aircraft from a new manufacturer has a cost of 4X the cost of a plane. To start a whole spare parts inventory for aircraft and engines is 2X the cost of the aircraft. Training of pilots on a new aircraft and building new simulators and not having the flexibility to switch crews within a schedule is 1.5X cost of a new aircraft. People Express, PanAm, Frontier 1 and 2, Braniff, Texas International, Canadian Airlines all failed at least in part by expanding their fleet outside of their operations baseline. As for clickbait, the author has been around for many years and with some well known publications. This is his first gig on his own and you cannot read the entire article until you click and register for this.

WTH are you rambling on about now?? We read the entire article earlier this week, clicked the links in it even....noone ever said anything about SWA buying the A220, just eyeing it and talking to pilots of it. Ever hear of "rattling the tail"? SWA has Boeing by the tail...if you read other posts in here, you would understand...most of us realize about introduction of another craft into a fleet and what it costs, especially being completely different to what you are use to flying, parts etc.It said "Looking" not "Buying"

** Don't believe that will happen (anytime soon)!! I'm sure the companies that have the MAX are pretty much frustrated w/this situation, and who wouldn't, but eventually things will get back to the "NORM". Every since SW started, its been all 737, that's ALL THEIR ENTIRE FLEET. To switch, would not be in their business mode. Think about ALL the mechanics that would need either RE-TRAINING or NEW TRAINING; FLIGHT CREW would need to be trained and certified, and Pilots would need TRAINING and a new TRAINING SIMULATOR area would need to be brought in. LASTLY, may have to order BRAND NEW A220, WITHOUT OVENS, (could be a costly issue), or take out any ovens in used A220, again a costly issue, to reduce weight. And then gate jetways would need proper fitting. OVERALL, might be just 'venting' the frustration in grounding of the MAX for mostly intended to use to Hawaii to reduce fuel cost. (Looks like PROFIT may not be that big this time)!!*** THANKS

I believe that SouthWest's initial decision for an all Boeing 737 fleet is what made them the Airline they are today. Less overhead in spare parts inventory, training both flight and mechanical, as well as better deals with the manufacturer. I'm from Tempe AZ, original home of America West. As a fledgling I saw them using many different aircraft resulting in maintenance issues, training issues and do on. They had 747's when they initiated service to Hawaii. Which they abandoned. Southwest had a much better and sensible business plan that has served them well todate.

This would be a terrible decision on Southwest to break the unmatched success of the airline that is nearly directly related to it's Boeing 737 family, fleet commonality. The 737 has been instrumental in making Southwest the world's foremost LCC, in profitability for more straight quarters than any other airline I can think of. The 737 is a marvel of an aircraft, and as we've moved from classic to NG and now to MAX, the fundamental flying characteristics of the aircraft have gotten even better, while retaining a better efficiency and weight that the A320NEO family. While Airbus plays around with "UULLRRs" by creating "flying gas tanks" that sacrifice passengers and cargo for fuel, just to fly a bit further, Boeing makes aircraft that perform their stated capability, everyday, every route, every flight, and the upcoming MAX-10 will be no different it the route optimization it was designed for. I'm am truly sorry to the lost brothers and sisters from the recent, unfortunate crashes, and I say that as someone who lives in Indonesia most of the year and has flown Lion, so I truly say that with sincerity, but there is nothing wrong with the MAX as an amazing aircraft. MCAS is another system that can be manipulated from the ground (research Serco,) like GECAS and engine monitoring, and to think that ANY software developer doesn't have a back door, usually accessible by the ultra corrupt within geo-political ICs is just inability to realize the potential for terrible "accidents" to happen due to the never ending push for more and more automation. Regardless of what one thinks of my last statement, it is still "over-automation" that allowed for these crashes to be possible, and with all due respect to Airbus fans (as we are all lovers of aviation,) Airbus has been the heavier promoter of automation in the cockpit over the years, especially with their video-game side-stick. We need to let pilots be pilots again, not computer savvy babysitters in the sky. Think of how many and how long, the 737-300 worked out for Southwest. Was their ultra-long running workhorse that would have probably flown many more cycles if the maintenance was economically viable. The MAX is even better, but sadly automation has reached the point where we've had unnecessary tragedy. Too close together, and both brand new aircraft that went down. The odds of those facts alone, are close to winning the super lotto. Something is NOT right here.

You may want to have a look at this squawk to see exactly what is wrong with the B38M and B39M. There is an inherent design flaw that Boeing tried to fix with software, which is more prone to error than actually fixing the design flaw.

https://flightaware.com/squawks/view/linked/email/alert/72846/

Come back after seeing that discussion and see if you still stick to your sentiment that there is nothing wrong with the B38M and B39M.

I always enjoy a good aviation discussion, and with sincerity and attentiveness, I read the article that you have linked in it's entirety. Let me also say first, that like most of us here, I've been an aviation mega-enthusiast since I was a single digit age, and while I never had the ability (life circumstances [mostly money,]) to be a certified pilot (yet, hopefully,) I have worked in and around aircraft, both in private security at OAK, and doing ramp for an old ATI 762 freighter conversion. Point being, please don't ever see anything I talk about with anyone as an argument, but a "discussion," instead. I am open minded and always ready and willing to learn and hear all perspectives with my biases aside, with any aspect of life, and especially in my passion for aviation. So anything I say, I must declare as opinion, even though that likely goes without saying anyway.

My original comment actually alluded to what ended up being on of the very last lines in that article...

"It doesn’t need to be “fixed” with more complexity, more software. It needs to be removed altogether."

Well, I agree with that statement completely. The reason I used the 733 as an example in my original comment was to illustrate that Boeing has already put in the money, time and effort to show that the engines could indeed be moved forward, with a redesigned, oddly shaped nacelle, and still prove (for probably the most flights ever recorded on any particular variant of any narrow-body, commercial aircraft,) that flight was safe, controllable, comfortably manageable for pilots, and profitable for wise airlines (like Southwest) who utilized the type in large numbers, not to mention a hit with otherwise uninterested in aviation (in general,) customers of Southwest's product, which has always been the magic of flight at a cost that the common man/woman could afford, with the basic knowledge of safety that flying was statistically safer than driving their car to the airport.

I believe that over-automation IS the problem, and what I meant when I said that there is nothing wrong with the MAX. What I should have said (yes, my fault,) was that there is nothing wrong with the evolution of aircraft efficiency in a general sense, except for the doors that have now been opened by over-automation. In that article, it also mentions, albeit in different wording, my similar sentiment that pilots should be pilots, and giving such a demanding power over flight to software coders on the ground, who have little to no general interest in aviation, is a terrible idea, and that for Boeing to bear the blame, solely for that phenomenon is unfair, because all modern, commercial aircraft now rely on software by these coder on the ground. My greater point is that the door that this opens is extremely dangerous to the core principles of aviation and aviators. The pilot of an aircraft full of human lives that he/she is responsible for, should absolutely zero ability for anyone on the ground, ever, to manipulate control of that aircraft, be it in real time (which is absolutely possible,) and in software coding in general. This is extremely dangerous, because not only does that pen a window of possibility for mistakes, it opens the door for corrupt manipulation.

I am no expert in aviation accident investigation, which you will be the first to point out, admittedly, but I spent a good portion of my life as an investigator before I got into the private security detail field. What I am trained in and good at is general knowledge of reading people. With that said, what I've been noticing lately, and not even by choice, as my phone and every other electronic device that I have (yes, another hobby,) has been pumping out "This is the end of Boeing" type propaganda now, daily, sometimes several times per day. Article after article making sure to drive a narrative that Boeing screwed up. Anytime I see our mainstream propaganda outlets pushing a theory out with such vigor, effort and repetitiveness, I tend to believe that the answer is something else. ANYthng else. When two brand new aircraft go down, killing all on board, in a matter of just a 6-month period, whereas the aviation investigator goes straight for the black box and the aircraft related evidence, my brain works toward a different angle. I go straight for the passenger manifests, both of the ultimately doomed flights and of the flight with pilot reported problems before the doomed flight. I sift through patterns and statistical odds. Something about all of this, doesn't pass the smell test for me. Not by a long-shot. That does not mean however, that I'm not paying attention to and respecting the aviation investigators at all. Maybe you think I sound crazy, and no offense taken if you do, but there is a piece of this puzzle that we are being kept from, IMO, and I just don't know what that is yet.

I will conclude by saying that I am not giving Boeing and the 737MAX a free pass, but I do believe that whatever we are dealing with here was inevitable at some point, during this expediency of over-automation in commercial aircraft, and in this particular case, it just so happens to be the MAX-8 that took the fall. (Absolutely no pun intended.) We could go on all day about heavy, too-far forward engines offsetting the AOA, but it is of my opinion that it goes deeper than that, and it's all related to very line that I've quoted from the article you linked me to.

Just because someone has a different opinion from you -- and the linked article was an opinion piece -- does not make it fake news. Incredible as this must seem to you, people can have different opinions. For example, your mother might have a better opinion of your ability to reason than I do.

If u care to read the articles this article pointed to, you would see that it said "eyeing" NOT "buying"...Southwest holds Boeing by the tail and if they want to rattle that tail, start "eyeing" other craft. It by no means means "buying"

Actually, no, it isn't as far as I can see. The article doesn't say SW is actually negotiating to buy any Airbus products. SW CEO Kelly looks to be putting Boeing on notice that the company needs to get its act together. Here's a quote from remarks in Dallas (https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2019/04/18/southwest-airlines-boeing-737-max.html): "Obviously, at this point in time, we don't have any plans to change there," Kelly said. "But like anyone, we'll have to constantly evaluate what's available in the marketplace."

Clear in simple.. it sips fuel. It will fly for decades. Sad as it is, that so many people had to die.I've flown United's 900 MAX, and outside of the loading time and a tail stick : and the fact it can't climb to a preferred attitude without some fuel burn, it's a people hauler, that bean counters will love forever as well. Even if some pilots call it a beer can.

BUT , , , success is measured by bums in seats. If pax shy away based on Boeing's problem with QA, then the beancounters will change their color. After all, there is competition. Example could be Jet Blue who is, I am certain, enjoying the scheduling havoc caused by gaps in the competitions fleets due to MAX groundings.

Ok? As posted down below eyeing and taking is not buying...and the last line of the article is what I have been saying...Southwest is basically grabbing Boeing by the tail and shaking it. "Boeing, are you listening? More importantly, Boeing stockholders, are you listening?"

Dance with the one who brung ya (Darrell Royal) . The 737 made SWA what it is today. Despite the media hysteria, there is no reason to abandon a perfectly good aircraft just because a couple of foreign pilots couldn't figure out that you have to slow the aircraft down significantly in order for the manual trim to work. Fixing thje software is a comfortable bandaid. Being careful to whom you sell new/ different tchnology is the fix.

And you fell into the same trap as well, and proving that you didn't read a damned word of the article.

You don't fix a hardware problem with software, as the software can fail much worse than hardware. Case in point: every single Intel CPU for a period of 10 years had the same bugs: FDIV and f00f. They used software as a bandaid for the design flaw, whereas their true fix was a redesign of the entire CPU.

Same applies here, and while the B737NG series is a perfectly good aircraft, the B38M and B39M have a design flaw that screwed over the airlines that bought it, and the true fix is to fix the design flaw, not wrap software around it, especially software with no crosscheck.

Sorry to say it, but you don't know what you're talking about regarding the software fix here outside of it being a bandaid being used in a feeble attempt to treat multiple stab wounds

The nose attitude was not consistently down, especially when they did stop the trim motor, but was, rather, eratic. I have not noted anything the pilots did to actually slow down the aircrafts in question, most notably retading the throttles to flight idle. Trim is a function of airspeed. .

Sounds like you didn't read the article at all either, and are basing everything you are saying on the nationality of the pilots. How very bigoted.

Perhaps reading the article again, let alone the report from the Ethiopian Aviation authority and crossing that with what is missing from every B737 pilot's training on the B38M and B39M and you'll see how wrong you are.

BTW: It was proven that the ETH pilots did everything right, per Boeing's instructions, so you know where you can go with the foreign pilot's crack, because that is a complete crock.

You're right--I didn't read the article. I didn't care to. I was making a comment really about the manual trim backup which was available to these foreign pilots, but evidently was not effective due to the high aerodynamic loads imposed by airspeed. It is a FACT that SWA pilots also encountered problems with the 737 -MAX 8, but were able to troubleshoot. To suggest that third-world pilots start a new airplane training programme on the same experiential level field as do US and Canadian pilots is PC BS which is getting people killed when a new planeis rushed into the l a foreign livery with a complete lack of adequate training manuals, bugged software, and faulty sensors. That does NOT mean generically that the 737 is unsafe. It does mean that less experienced foreign pilots are being set up to crash by he situation of the new technology imposed on them. Finally, labeling people you do not know is a boring contemporary substitute for learned discourse.

You're the one that brought nationality into it and claiming that it was because of their nationality that they didn't operate the aircraft properly. that is bigotry. You mad that bed; lie in it.

It was proven by the civil aviation authority of the country, not just the airline. In fact, the aviation authority's report backs up what was stated by the airline as well as the CVR and FDR retrieved from the flight.

Again, you're wrong, and I would suggest that you reread everything that has been published about this because once again, you're clearly wrong.

And yes, I stand by my comment about bigotry. that comment is disgusting and pathetic.

Actually it wasn't just the Aviation Authority..perhaps you might try using Google yourself, or better still, keep up with the news on hand. I am not defending Brad, but your carrying on like it was a collborative effort by the government itself to defend the pilots. This is back from April 4th.

"The findings, released Thursday in Ethiopia, suggest that the pilots on the Ethiopian Airlines flight initially followed the prescribed procedures after the anti-stall system malfunctioned. The findings laid out a timeline of the March 10 flight based on analysis from 18 Ethiopian and international investigators and information from the jet’s flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder."

1. Ethiopian Air is owned by the Ethiopian government. (https://www.ethiopianairlines.com/corporate/company/about-us/overview)

2. The Ethiopian government is investigating the crash.(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/world/asia/ethiopia-crash-boeing.html)

3. The Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority has 3 investigators and an annual budget of less than $89,000 us (https://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFKCN1R30RK-OZATP)

4. There are rules that govern how investigations should be conducted in regards to data sharing, evidence access, transparency, etc. These are not being followed.(https://www.airlineratings.com/news/ethiopian-737-investigation-questioned-crash-expert/)

5. France pulled flight-data and cockpit-voice recorder data, but Ethiopian officials will not allow them to interpret that data. This is highly irregular, yet Ethiopian authorities refuse to explain why.(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-20/france-is-said-not-to-be-handling-ethiopian-air-crash-analysis)

6. Ethiopian authorities refused to accept any responsibility for 2010 crash, despite the evidence and 3rd party conclusions (captain had 118 hours)(https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pilot-error-probable-cause-of-ethiopian-airlines-737-367118/)

If you don't see a problem here, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

If you read your URL article for point 2 (btw that wasn't the only article but basically said the same as many others)"The report, released Thursday, laid out a timeline of the flight based on analysis from 18 Ethiopian and international investigators and information from the jet’s flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder." NOT just the Ethiopian govt..NTSB , Transport Canada, BEA are all involved.

I dont know what point 3 has got to do with an international investigation...guess ECAA were glad they had help.

Point 4 is a joke...sharing has been across all spectrums, if it were not, Boeing would not have received a copy of the report, and some data would not be online.

Point 5 is another joke...The CVR and FDR were originally suppose to go to Germany, but Germany could not analyze them so they were sent to France, France did pull the data, and part of that data has already been posted..if this Ethiopian Government conspiracy, that you obviously think is happening, was happening, HOW is it ome of that data is posted online (https://www.airnerd.co.uk/first-preliminary-report-of-ethiopian-airlines-flight-et302-released), Boeing received the preliminary report with data intact, the FAA has a copy of it etc etc etc

Because I can read what's already been released about the flight paths. I'm not required to wait for a Final Report to render an opinion based on what I've read. Airspeed is a comcination of pitch, power, and trim. Altering one of the three will produce a diffrent airspeed.

Yes you can render an "opinion", but "opinion" and facts are, more times than not, different.Your wording about the MAX being safe, makes it sound as thou it is only safe for North American pilots, but in past while, North American pilots and former Boeing engineers, have deemed it not as safe as they were lead to expect..safe is when an AoA sensor anomaly causes the MCAS system to stay disengaged, and alert ALL pilots of a possible issue, not just the select few who "paid for an upgrade"...safe is NOT throwing software, and a jerry-rigged system at an aircraft, that should have been completely certified as a different aircraft because the airframe and flight characteristics had been completely altered...safe IS telling all pilots and airlines about EVERY aspect of the system, training them on the system, AND not removing material from the training manuals.

+randwolve You make some excellent points here, and I think that you have come to the crux of the matter when you opine that the 737-MAX 8 and variants should have been certified as a new type by the FAA. My original statement was a lament that the 737 BRAND itself was being sullied and that the 737 TYPE (737-100, 200, etc) IS safe. One huge advantage of the 737 series has always been that each new variant was still a 737, so competency in the type, once achieved, was assured even with the introduction of a new variant. Boeing NEVER should have sold the 737-MAX 8 to ANY carrier, especially a foreign flag carrier with modest training resources, that did not include ALL safety upgrades and options.

I agree with your point about the older B737...flight controls, tube, wings etc had all pretty well remained the same, and a reason why the "dented" nacell appeared on the updated engines. Although I had hoped, along the road of earlier development, they had got rid of the "spin masters". I also wish they had not left out material, from the older manuals, in the newer 1's.

>American pilots and former Boeing engineers, have deemed it not as safe as they were lead to expect...

If you're referring to the Dallas Morning News article on March 13th, it's manufactured nonsense (it's based on a total of 5 reports, which ends up as zero reports under scrutiny..so it's not that hard to fact check).

>Yes you can render an "opinion", but "opinion" and facts are, more times than not, different.

WOW..William and myself having a discussion and you go stick your mug in it...MO, I was not referring to the Dallas article, but thanks for pointing to another. Perhaps you should go do some research first before acting like a twit.And yes...I do say.

You truly are a horse's butt, aren't you. No where was I crying, just making a factual statement.It is obvious, however, that you cannot use that gift that resides in the upper vestibule, in your body, research using Google, Bing, Yahoo or whatever, and read articles from pilots and former engineers. Instead, you rather come in here and rake others. Here's a box of tissues, go cry in another forum!